Hotaru

Members
  • Content count

    685
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,780 Excellent

4 Followers

About Hotaru

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

6,768 profile views
  1. I'm not saying it's easy (that depends mostly on how well-written the existing code is) or even that it's advisable, just that it shouldn't be impossible. I do agree that on the off-chance they were to implement it, they should only do so if they could be sure of not breaking saves. I could go either way here. Fewer is arguably simpler, and having too many more would sort of dilute the importance of each individual one, just by virtue of having a longer list of names to memorize. On the other hand, more would give us more flexibility--like my preference to start with three pilots and no scientists or engineers at all. In any event, if they added two more and one or both of them were girls I'd be more than satisfied. I myself might actually make only one of them a girl (giving 4 boys and 2 girls) just so the original group doesn't feel quite so neatly composed and symmetrical. (In a group of six random people , you're as likely as not to have more of one gender than the other, just like flipping a coin six times isn't always going to yield 3 head and 3 tails.) Not that I'd complain about having 3 of each, mind you. PS. I believe the addition of female kerbals did change the syntax of persistence files by adding a "Gender=" line, which might be what broke saves back then (although why they couldn't just detect the missing line and add "Gender=Male" to every existing kerbal when loading an old save is beyond me).
  2. All they'd have to do would be: -Make all kerbals default to status "Applicant" rather than "Available." -Add a few more preset names and sets of stats that are guaranteed to show up (or remove the existing ones so you get only randoms). -Make the "Veteran" flag always default to "False," switching it to "True" later on based on kerbal experience. -Possibly change hiring costs so that the first few are free. None of the above should have any effect on the syntax of save files. Done with a bit of care, I can't think of a reason why any those changes would break existing saves. Already you can edit your persistence file to not contain Jeb, Bill, Bob, and Val and it'll still work fine. I did that in my current career without ill effect: I started with Kerzer, Burmin, and Melxie, all pilots. I didn't make them "Veterans," but I probably could've and it would have registered them correctly as orange suits. Personally, the way I'd go would be to add a few more "preset" kerbals--enough for, say, 3 of each class--and let the user have their first 3 or 4 hires for free. That'd give us plenty of room to sneak in a few more girl characters without stopping anyone who still wants to start with good old Jeb, Bill, and Bob for old times' sake. As far as their names goes--personally I'm not crazy about naming them after real people. While I've certainly gotten attached to Valentina since she was introduced, her name was not the one I'd have picked. And I have to agree that naming them after real people could potentially be much more of a political statement than just including them would be. I'm not really strongly opposed to it either, but if it were me, I'd just pick a few random names that I thought were cute and leave it at that.
  3. I'm a transgender girl. I am well aware of stereotypes and prejudices. I agree it's not clear what the biological sex is of the kerbals in the game (or even if they have one). It is clear, however, that they are identifying as male and female, and are intended to be identified as such by the audience. And that's good enough for me.
  4. Needless to say, the lack of female VAB workers or named characters is demoralizing (to some of us) in a very different way than the lack of other features we might wish for. Particularly torture chambers. Not that I don't see the appeal. The point I'm trying to get across is, this really matters to some people. Not having fuel hoses or clouds or decent sized landing legs is annoying, sure, but not having female kerbals is depressing. Unfortunately, there's no way I can convey exactly how depressing it is, or why it's depressing, except to ask you to take my word for it. But depressing it remains. Once again: who would it hurt? You want to hear a reason why we should have more girl characters--I want to hear a reason why not. (I do think more than four orange suits would be a bit much--in fact I think four is already too many. Personally, I like the suggestion to swap Bill for a girl engineer. Another option would be to start with three pilots--Jeb, Val, and one new one--and then get two each of scientists and engineers--Bill, Bob, and two new ones--later on. Or abolish starting orange suits entirely and make them earned like stars. Or have a pool of a dozen or so to pick from. In any case, it's not an insurmountable problem.)
  5. While I agree that "PC for PC's sake" is insufficient reason, what's wrong with "so girls enjoy the game more?" And what does it hurt? Sure, it's promoting an ideology, but it's doing that either way, gender equality or gender disparity. There is no opting out. Declaring the game to be free of gender bias does not make it so: the fact remains that 90% of named characters and 100% of VAB/SPH workers are male. I've spent my entire life as a gamer being frustrated by endless resistance to allowing girl characters anywhere in video games. Playable characters, named NPCs, random background characters, enemies, whatever--whenever you suggest adding a few girls you're met with an infinity of excuses. I wish I could articulate what it's like to be constantly excluded from playing the games you want because you're forced to play them as a boy character and that takes all the fun out of it--or how genuinely exciting it is when you finally get a game that does have decent girl characters! Of course, from the opposite point of view it must seem like an endless barrage of feminist complaints about no female characters, and I can see how people get sick of hearing it. The difference is this: adding female characters doesn't hurt anyone--whereas leaving them out does. Forget about political correctness, feminism, whatever: consider what actual effect this has on people who play the game. Maybe you don't notice that there aren't female VAB workers--but I notice it every time I happen to glance at the floor, and it always makes me a little sad. And again, I'm not saying it has to be exactly fifty-fifty. Just that adding a couple more girl characters in places we don't already have them would go a disproportionately long way toward improving at least one girl's experience of the game. A few female VAB workers would be worth more to me than all the textures and parts and game mechanics in the world--because then every time I happened to look down at the VAB floor, it'd make me happy to see a couple of girls down there.
  6. All I know is, I pretty much only play games where I can play as a girl character. Not on principle or anything like that, just because if I'm stuck playing as a boy I lose interest. Back in 0.90, I looked at KSP and what I saw was a game with only male characters. So I didn't buy it, and I never would have if if I hadn't learned you could use Texture Replacer to (sort of) add female ones. I was seriously excited when the devs added them properly in 1.0. Especially because the design they came up with was really nice and cute, and not a silly caricature with cartoon makeup. Of all the features they've added since I've been playing, girl kerbals are by far the one that I appreciated the most. And that had nothing to do with feminism or political correctness or gender equality or any of that sort of thing--it had to do with me enjoying the game. Right now we have 1 named girl kerbal and (I think) 9 named boy ones. While it's hardly as important as having female kerbals in the game in the first place, adding a couple more girls (or changing one or two of the boys) would nonetheless be appreciated--again, not for political correctness, just for making the game more fun for those of us who care about such things. PS. And I'm not saying the ratio has to be exactly fifty-fifty or you're all horrible misogynists. Just that making things a bit more even would be nice and wouldn't hurt anybody.
  7. Hotaru

    HSP: Back from Eve.

    After a bit of investigation, here's what I've worked out: LC-4 had 3600 m/s of vacuum delta-v whereas the map says 2900 m/s is required, so it should have made orbit with 700 m/s remaining--yet in fact it came up 400 m/s short, so somewhere we're losing 1100 m/s. It looks like the angled engines cost a little over 100 m/s, which isn't nothing but still leaves 1000 m/s unaccounted for. Its sea-level TWR on Laythe is 1.31, which is a bit low but still within what I normally consider acceptable for a launch vehicle. Obviously this will result in some gravity losses, but one would think that 2900 m/s would already be taking into account normal gravity losses, so only the difference between LC-4 and a higher-TWR vehicle should matter. I'm skeptical that this alone could account for the remaining 1000 m/s of "missing" delta-v, but without more testing I can't prove it for sure. A third possibility occurs to me: that LC-4 is suffering from aerodynamic losses. It certainly looks aerodynamic--and I've made sure that each part is connected to a same-sized part above it (there's a Rockomax flat adapter clipped in between the top of the lander can and the upper fuel tank, for instance)--but it does have the two angled nacelles producing extra drag, and I imagine the flat bottom and associated exposed 3.75m node aren't helping either. Again, I question whether this could account for a full kilometer per second, but between aero and gravity losses I suppose it's possible. It's either that or the delta-v map figure is just plain wrong, at least for a vertical-launch vehicle like LC-4. For the rescue lander, I'm just going to overdesign it to the point where it can make orbit on Kerbin--I figure that should be good enough to orbit Laythe as well, and never mind the delta-v map. We'll see what happens.
  8. Hotaru

    HSP: Back from Eve.

    Well, I've hardly been back to KSP a week and I'm already getting severely tired of stupid stock limitations. So I'm going to compromise and start using KIS (for minor tasks like removing the solar arrays on Patience II) and MechJeb (mostly for automating routine maneuvers). The former is in this update, the latter is not but will be in the next one. I still don't have KAS, so no game-changing stuff like struts or fuel hoses, and I'll probably hold off using MechJeb for fancy stuff like automatic landings and transfer burns, so I don't expect either of these things to actually change the way I play much--but hopefully they will help maintain my sanity in the face of the bazillionth identical circularization burn. Vertine and Chadgan pose with LC-4 and the mission flag on the surface of Laythe. Daring 7: Liftoff from Laythe. KS-9: crew rotation. Aqualung 23: Kerbin orbit cleanup operations. Daring 8 and KS-10: return from Eve and Patience II disassembly work.
  9. Hotaru

    HSP: Back from Eve.

    Daring 7 approaches Laythe. Crew rotations and Kerbin system ops. Daring 8: departure from Eve. Daring 7: arrival at Laythe.
  10. Hotaru

    Kerbalised & Budgeted Blue Origin

    Here we go: New Jeb: fully reusable, 10,517 funds (10,058 vehicle, 459 fuel). Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/npim6ewbuxy2gu3/New Jeb.craft?dl=0
  11. Hotaru

    HSP: Back from Eve.

    And we're back, yet again. This may be it: with Daring 7 on its way to Laythe and Daring 8 waiting for the window back from Eve, the only destinations left are Tylo and Jool before my original goal for this save will be--finally!--done. After that, I'm not sure--maybe I'll keep playing this save, maybe install OPM and explore that, maybe I'll start another project. We will see. Boring mod stuff: TL;DR still in 1.2.2, added KS3P. @RocketMan-Explorer I was also sad to see the end of Defiance--which as I've said before is one of my favorite designs I've ever built--and I probably would've kept using it were it not for the time factor. Although each individual Defiance mission was pretty easy, with six stations to keep up with, they added up to the point where I was spending most of my time on crew rotations. The Dauntless can do five of those missions all at once, which is a serious time-saver. Boring financial stuff (Dauntless SSTO vs. Defiance mini-shuttle): TL;DR: Dauntless is cheaper, but not by much. Cargo shuttle Dauntless 2002 returns to Kerbin at the end of mission CS-9, carrying a solar array retrieved from space station Patience II. Dauntless CS-8, 9, and 10: Patience II disassembly. Lucidity 6, Sanity 5, Clarity 1: Tylo probes. S400 Resolute test series: a new utility shuttle. Crew rotations and Kerbin system ops. Perception and Beamish I: comsats and a new launch vehicle.
  12. Hotaru

    HSP: Back from Eve.

    @RocketMan-Explorer It's not dead, just idle. I tend to play a game obsessively for a few months, then get kind of tired of it and go play something else. (Right now I'm playing XCOM.) But with a game I like as much as KSP, something or other will always get me thinking about it and I'll get back in the mood and come back and play it again. So, barring unforeseen events, I will be back eventually, I just don't know when. There's no direct successor to the Defiance in the sense of a small (4-6 kerman) shuttlecraft--in operational service it was replaced by the Dauntless, which carries 20 passengers so it can effectively complete 5 Defiance missions in one go. For some reason I haven't had much luck with smaller SSTOs in the latest versions of KSP (no idea why, everybody else still seems to be able to get them to work) and it pretty much always makes more sense to send a fully-reusable Dauntless instead of several mostly-expendable Defiances.
  13. Hotaru

    HSP: Back from Eve.

    Well, it's been a couple months and I honestly don't know when I'll be getting back to KSP. Some of the things going on elsewhere in the community have, to be perfectly honest, put me off the whole enterprise. It's still one of my favorite games ever, and you guys in this thread have been a great motivation, so I can reasonably guarantee I'll get back to it at some point, but it might not be for a while yet. However--I did get one last mission in before I put down the game back in September, and I never got around to posting the results. Here they are. Erithis: first Kerman on Eve! Daring 8: Eve mission.
  14. Hotaru

    Some Disassembly Required

    I don't know--they look like they'd make great little escape pods. Extremely cool. I wonder how they'd handle reentry at higher speeds.
  15. Personally, I find autostrutting a couple of the most distant parts of the ship to the root is often enough to minimize wobble. I've never had kraken attacks due to autostruts except times when I went completely overboard and autostrutted basically every part of a very complex vehicle. So unless you think they're cheating (I disagree, but I can see the argument for it since there are no restrictions on using them) or for some reason they're more kraken-inducing for you than for me (always possible given differences in hardware), there's not much reason not to use autostruts as long as you don't go too crazy with them. PS. @Magzimum It's possible that the multi-port connector in the image is itself a bit flexible, which could account for the failure of the ports to line up properly. Maybe try a bi- or tri-coupler with docking ports attached, that might be sturdier and therefore more likely to have all the ports connect up properly. (Or just unlock the Sr. ports, that works too.)